Please indulge this argument that has boiled in my mind since theology class last semester:
1 – Nothing, not even the nature of reality, can be terminally proven or disproven.
2 – Reality is thus open to questioning.
3 – By questioning reality, one trusts his/her own reason to question it.
4 – Since one trusted reason to distrust reality, it is logically impossible to distrust everything
∴ Something/someone must be trusted
If the propositions are sound and conducive to the conclusion, it is then both necessary and useful to trust people and things while living in reality. To take this one step further, I would posit that nothing would be more trustworthy than a creator of reason and reality, if such a creator exists.Since I have been convinced that being a Christian Theist is the most sensible view on reality, I believe that such a creator does exist, and furthermore, that this Creator is an objective standard by which to measure morality, unique, pre-existent, omnipotent, omnipresent, personal, revealed to humanity through the Bible, and more magnificent than my limited imagination could perceive.
If this Creator is to be trusted, then logically, I ought to trust Him more than I trust myself or my reason, but since when am I a logical creature? In fact, I find myself trusting my untrustworthy self over God more times than I would care to admit. I think the cause of this illogical reaction lies partly in the fact that I am more easily tangible to myself than God is to me, and partly because I do not have to give myself up to please me, but I do have to give myself up to please and trust God. In this manner, it all comes down to the gut-wrenching dilemma Paul describes in Romans 7, and it becomes difficult to distinguish what God wants from what my flesh wants.
This perplexing conundrum has been with me in many areas of my life, but the most recent time it has plagued me is in the matter of fundraising, specifically: how much am I supposed to work and how much is God going to provide? I am fully aware that such an astronomical sum is only possible through a miracle, but my question is, is it the kind of miracle where I am meant to take loaves and fish to be multiplied, or is it the kind where my faith and a word will suffice to cure my blindness?
Considering all this and the consequences of whether or not I actively take part in the miracle, have finally come to the conclusion that I would rather risk overmuch and be too bold than to risk under-much and live too safely. The reason for this decision stems from the realization that God, like Aslan “is not a tame lion”, and thus His plans run in so many odd dimensions that what we can glimpse is merely a millionth of millionth of them. Therefore, for the mild, success is dependent on oneself, and is duller than failure because one never gets to see the roaring glory of God, only the vanity of one’s own petty achievements. However, for the risqué there is enormous potential for failure where God picks one up from the deepest depths, gives one fierce joy, and sprinkles one with frank wonder when led to the golden peaks of magnificence.
